Question

read the excerpt from the republic by plato. do you observe that we were not far wrong in our guess that temperance was a sort of harmony? why so? why, because temperance is unlike courage and wisdom, each of which resides in a part only, the one making the state wise and the other valiant; not so temperance, which extends to the whole, and runs through all the notes of the scale, and produces a harmony of the weaker and the stronger and the middle class, whether you suppose them to be stronger or weaker in wisdom or power or numbers or wealth, or anything else. most truly then may we deem temperance to be the agreement of the naturally superior and inferior, as to the right to rule of either, both in states and individuals. how does the phrase
aturally superior and inferior\ support the speakers claim? it uses antithesis to establish a middle ground between opposing forces. it uses metonymy to represent larger factors and values that are at play. it uses pathos in the form of strong language to persuade the audience. it uses ethos by drawing on life experiences that the speaker has had

Explanation:

The phrase "naturally superior and inferior" creates an opposition, which is a characteristic of antithesis. Antithesis is used to set up a contrast and potentially find a middle - ground or balance, as in the case of temperance creating harmony among different classes. It is not metonymy (substituting one thing for another related thing), pathos (appeal to emotion), or ethos (appeal to credibility) in this context.

Answer:

It uses antithesis to establish a middle ground between opposing forces.